..Tips for the Top  -  a book on Haircare

 
 

 Authenticity and power behind the  words  -  Swapna Hair Enricher,   Cocolite  and  continuing haircare research

 
     
 

Constructive haircare  Tips for the Top:    Destructive hairy Fictions  rufooled:     Spicy Articles  sitemap 3

 
     
 

home page hairsaverplus  Some others   Hairloss   Dandruff   Hair Growth   The Audacity  Compare   internationally

 

 

   Unfair Practices  
 

 
The open fight between Lever and Colgate is presented in this page
   
  The fight between them shows that they are liars - Some of the advertised claims are questionable. They provided the proof against one another.

It also says clearly about Unfair Trade Practices. They also inform the public inadvertently that you just cannot trust companies on the basis of their claims or their popularity. Did they offer any apology to the Public for having fooled them ?

Did MRTPC impose any fine ? No. Sermons from the podium and the matter is closed and sealed

Was not the Advertising Council of India sleeping - they too ask us to complain to them about false and baseless advertisement claims. Did the Press pursue the matter ?  No

 

Rule of the Land - Supreme Court's view
   
  1]  The Supreme Court had ruled that  "the object is to bring honesty and truth in the relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer"

    The Supreme Court emphasises honesty and truth between Seller and the Buyer

2]  "if  the general impression conveyed is false, the most punctilious and scrupulous accuracy in immaterial minutiae will not render the representations true. "That is,  Attempting to  prove it otherwise, would only mean that 'the Devil is quoting the Scriptures'.

3] MRTPC does not consider it fair to advertise " unsubstantiable or yet to be proved" Claims

Now, with the above parameters, examine the fight details given below, between Colgate and Hindustan Lever and make your own judgement of that as well as my views. Both have attempted to fool the public. That is very clear because they washed the linen in public and some facts came out

 

Did MRTPC's role help the Public or sent an advance warning signal to others for the future ?  No 
   
  MRTPC stands for Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The above quotes are from their final verdict in the fight between Colgate and Lever. 
   
  MRTPC banks on the Law, uses impressive words and issues a 'behave yourself' sermon to Colgate and Lever. Let me use simple terms to summarise that 
   
  It is unfair to advertise unsubstantiable or yet to be proved claims. By advertising, one has given false impression to the public - lied openly, which has been admitted / proved / in the records
   
  If you and I, the common public, give a false address in writing to bank, demat account opening, driving license etc, it is a legal offense. When these companies shy openly through advertisements, there is no punishment ? It does not make sense to me. In 30 years, I do not feel that they have effectively done something for the public. refer 'Cement Pricing' and close mrtpc'

  

Unethical Advertising - explained with Colgate Vs Lever fight
   
  Round 1 went to Colgate

The baseless claim : Hindustan Lever  promoted its New Pepsodent Tooth paste  in 1997 with the
claim that it has "102%" anti-bacterial activity compared to any other ordinary tooth paste.

Colgate with the way the message was advertised, rightly pointed out that by ordinary tooth paste, Lever was targeting its Colgate Dental Cream in particular. Colgate Palmolive hauled up Hindustan Lever before Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices commission, [MRTPC] New Delhi. The Justices issued an injection against Hindustan Lever. The case number is Unfair Trade Practices Enquiry No 405 /97.

' MRTPC orders halt to "102%" Ad campaign to protect Consumers' interest' is the headline of the advertisement, released by Colgate, when MRTPC issued the injunction against Hindustan Lever. Colgate advertised this Injunction with some details in the print media. Some paras/contents from that advertisement are as below

Pepsodent got a reasonable share in the tooth paste market perhaps after nearly 30 years  - with a false / questionable claim.


 
 
Injury to the Public   -   Did anyone pay the penalty for that is also a relevant basic question
   
  MRTPC: " The commission held that Colgate - Palmolive had established a prima facie case against the ad campaign. It held that if the claim of "102"% anti- bacterial superiority is ultimately not found to be true," consumers by and large can be said to have been duped by such advertisement campaign.

This injury caused to the public in general can hardly be compensated in terms of money, as the feeling of being duped cannot be evaluated in monetary terms. This observation is against Hindustan Lever.

We therefore think it is necessary at this stage to injunct the respondent from directly or indirectly making any reference to Colgate in its TV commercials or newspaper advertisements or hoardings for claiming anti-bacterial superiority of its toothpaste products. 

We think it is also necessary to injunct the Respondent [Hindustan Lever] from referring to any specific quantum of anti-bacterial superiority in terms of any specific percentage figures of its product over any other product till its claim of such anti-bacterial superiority is fully established."


 
 
The self certified Priest turns out be a thief
   
  The Table Turns:  Round 2 goes to Hindustan Lever. To me, both are unreliable and shameless liars 
   
  The Reader now knows a case and also as to what an advertisement should truthfully convey.

Let us have some more particulars about this ongoing fight between these 2 companies. The details are from Times of India, Ahmedabad,  published perhaps on 14th July 1998.

Hindustan Lever [HLL] has taken Colgate to the MRTPC now. "The war of a toothpaste's supremacy through numbers is challenged by HLL .  HLL has argued that by claiming " two and half time more effective protection against germs, Colgate is de facto making a claim of 250% per cent better protection and anti-bacterial superiority.

HLL has alleged that this violates the law laid down by the MRTPC during November 1997, in a dispute between the two companies" [ law and not ruling is the term used by HLL, if that suits them ! ]

Colgate commits the same mistake, earlier made by Hindustan Lever of making an excess claim - 250%. What ethical standards ! You informed the Indian Public of having been wronged and you now brazenly, fool them - You are also cheap is what you admit in a way.

And Lever landed a solid punch

" HLL has claimed that the level of Xylitol in CDC -DP [ Colgate Dental Cream - Double Protection] is merely 3% percent, which it argues is lower than 10 percent level required for efficacy."

" This is clear from a paper published by Colgate's own scientists which states that the concentration of 10 percent Xylitol is clinically effective in conjunction with fluoride for tooth decay benefits" the complaint allege, adding that there is no published evidence of efficacy of Xylitol in the absence of Fluoride.

And the Press Coverage: wonderful" In a written response to queries from this paper, ......" - that is Times of India for you.  ...HLL had based its claim for 102% anti bacterial efficacy for New Pepsodent on Triclosan

 

Both are guilty 
   
  Hindustan Lever Claiming 2% extra anti-bacterial capacity for Pepsodent is bad. Colgate fights to stop that advertisement. And then returns with 250% anti bacterial capacity for its Cream. 

But as the product does not have both the ingredients needed for such capacity, Lever punches a knock out, quoting Colgate's own Research Reports. Lever wins this round. 

Colgate, to the best of recollection, is advised against using the term "Suraksha Chakra" around the name of Colgate Dental Cream, as it was doing for ages. There used to be a ring around the Colgate toothpaste name earlier

Now do you get that ? Both Colgate and Lever are household names. They are reputed Companies. But for the mud slinging between them, we would not have heard the above details. 

Both are guilty of the crimes that they have levelled against one another 

   
  What did the public gain ? nothing functional for the teeth, purse or feeling confident, with hoped for vigilance by some governmental / regulating authorities against erring companies

   

Kettle calling the Pot Black
   
  1] If you recollect the advertisement for one product of HLL, the message would be that it is approved by the Medical Technologists Association of India. In its fight with Colgate, it argues that efficacy of 3% Xylitol is not supported by authentic Medical evidences.

In the Advertisement, HLL, presents " Medical Technologists Association" as if it is an authentic knowledgeable, certifying authority. Who are this certifying authority ? They do not say that really.

As Doctors cannot openly certify or advertise any Pharmaceutical or Cosmetic product, this certification has no value or authenticity. Any person who mixes a toothpaste is a Technologist.

A basic Tooth paste can be formulated by you and me with a simple formula from a Formulation book. We can assemble 10 of our friends. Each one can make a simple variation. We can call ourselves Technologists and form an Association tomorrow called ' Indian Dental care Association' if there is no outfit with that name. It is so simple. 

But the advertisement emphasises that to imply that it is a honourable, ethical and well recognised outfit. But if it comes to a fight, they say that efficacy of Xylitol is not supported by authentic Medical Evidences. Did the Clinic Shampoo advertisements of 1993 had medical support ? 

If Colgate forms or say, there is one Dental Technologists Club, in Sikkim, that approves Colgate Dental Cream, that would not be acceptable evidence by HLL or in the court of law. Why then HLL is using such a forum's name to promote a product. It is a misdirection.

2] Let us turn back to Colgate. If HLL's case against Colgate with MRTPC is truthful, then as HLL says Colgate has used less percentage of Xylitol and that too, without Fluoride, and claiming 250% better efficacy compared to an ordinary tooth paste.

What is an ordinary tooth paste ? who defines it and how ? You cannot just mix Calcium Carbonate, Sorbitol, CMC, SLS with water to make it a paste and claim it as an ordinary tooth paste! They do not define the base over which they  claim the Superiority in performance.

To me, the lack of honesty and truth, which Supreme Court emphasises, is lacking in Colgate's claim

 To sum up, both these companies do not deserve the Trust of the people

   

Reflect
   
  In the name and interests of the public, they all fight. We can have a sound sleep. Does / did the public benefit in any way ? 

Press: " In a written response to queries from this paper, ..........." That is Times of India for you, the largest circulated English daily in India. What did they do ? nothing. They just reported dutifully the version of the company referred. Matter closed, it is a stale news in 24 hours.

For the Tooth Paste, Times pried a bit. What about the TFM reduction in Toilet Soaps reported by Business World ? Not a single daily or magazine followed up the matter. 

What do you do ? Trust in God and wash your mouth and body with available pastes and Soaps


 
 
Labeling Certificates
   
  One tooth paste is advertised as approved by Indian Medical Association in August 2005 in Indian TV. Doctors cannot advertise a product. [ Dr. Shriram Lagoo was disbarred I think, for appearing in an advertisement. ]

So Indian Medical Association cannot be an association of Medical Professionals though it sounds like one. 

   

Advertisements: Presenting unrelated fact to twist the Public wrongly
   
  In June 2004, Bajaj Almond hair oil is advertised as superior to Coconut Oil as it contains 300% or times, more of Vitamin E. It could be factually correct because Coconut Oil contains hardly any Vitamin E. But the implications in that message is needless misguidance and mislead the public. If the product is that good, Bajaj being more than a hundred year old company, should have by now captured the First position and not be behind many other in hair oil market. 

For example, ground oil contains infinite times more Vitamin E than water. But it means nothing - using facts to mislead / misguide is also wrong.

Vitamin E is essential or nourishes the hair to health is implied but it is not so. Vitamin E can be made synthetically to any extent since several decades - 1952 or so. 

I saw in 2003 special pink capsules of Vitamin E from Merck. These are sold through beauty parlour / saloon trade channels. How many did it help ?  Hardly any !

If it is very effective, Merck has the Managerial, Financial and Distribution muscle to make it a Multi Billions Dollar sales product.  Merck knows that well. Otherwise, where was the need for Propecia ?


 
 
Marketing Success finally for Pepsodent - Built with a Bluff
   
  Pepsodent coined the slogan "you will wonder where the Yellow went" in or around 1970. It did not work.  They had struggled to get a significant entry in Indian Tooth Paste market for perhaps over 20 years, with 'Signal' and "Pepsodent' tooth pastes. Both were relaunched, I think,  2 - 3 times thereafter. Nothing worked. And finally, 102% bluff clicked.
   
  If what all is printed is "gospel truth', who will print the lies !

Pepsodent has captured good Market Share now - around 17% or something in 2002. So Colgate actually lost in Kurukshetra - the market / amongst the public


 
 
Spectator Governments and other public bodies
   
  One Precedent:  In the Seventies, several Multinational and National  companies used to advertise that their Baby Milk Powder is more Nutritive and Better for the Infants than the Mothers' Natural Milk. It was a Questionable and Unscientific claim.

Playing with the Health of the Children:   As per my recollection, Some Western companies hastily dumped the left over stock as well, in India. The damage was done. The Future Generation  paid the Price for the folly of the Present. The Companies played with the Health of the Children - for their sales and profits !

The Government of India belatedly banned such advertisements much after the West took the lead. So please be not under the impression that Government will act in time.  Blaming the

1]      The Regulating Authorities for their negligence

2]      The Companies for their Unethical approach

3]      The Public for their muteness and ignorance.

does not really help - especially the sufferer.

Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims have not been compensated, even with money, till 2008

 

My goal / Request: ............................Making Swapna Free to the World
 
Swapna Hair Enricher, as a Hairsaver, can help Millions across the World to retain the God given natural and free, anti aging Cosmetic aid, the Hair, for a long period of their lives - say even after 60 years. The site elaborates that with sufficient proofs / supportive details.

I am looking for a Philanthropist who can buy Swapna's Technology and make it Free to the World. I lack the finance to retire peacefully now. One cannot preach philosophy on an empty stomach.

But I still hate the thought of selling the Technology to Companies, who can milk the public dry. Mad is the epithet that I earn frequently for this approach, now that I have closed my earlier main business. I can wait for one more year. Refer Swapna or Cocolite  and think what you can do to meet the above goal

 
Sections  

Links for different sections or pages

Swapna Hair Enricher   The Hair Saver for  Hairloss and Dandruff:  Hair Growth I  Photo Proofs   Invention     indian supply  
Haircare Guides   Book chapters - Tips for the Top    hairsense       Notes   rufooled   hairfaq:      links    Site map 2
Other sections   Technology Transfer:    Swapna     Cocolite:   Spicy shots:  hit list    sitemap 3:    site map    Contact
     
Errors and Omissions exempted.  If there be any unwanted oversights, mistake in content or suggestions for improvements, please e mail us
Last Modified: Dec 9, 2008:     Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA]